Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations that use of the TV bands by primary and secondary broadcast users have priority over wireless microphones and white space devices. The Commission believes that preserving robust over-the-air broadcast television service remains an important spectrum allocation priority, especially to rural areas without adequate MVPD and broadband service alternatives. In addition, the Commission has recognized the promise of next generation ATSC 3.0 service by over-the-air television broadcasters to expand the universe of potential uses of broadcast spectrum capacity for new and innovative services in ways that will complement the nations burgeoning 5G networks and usher in a new wave of innovation and opportunity. As NAB and a number of broadcasters noted in their 2015
comments, adoption of the proposed rules would serve to freeze full power stations in place and hamstring their ability to expand or innovate to better serve their viewers. Having restructured the TV band, the Commission finds that to now adopt a requirement that primary and/or secondary television stations protect spectrum availability for white space devices and wireless microphones in the smaller, more densely packed television band, would not serve the public interest. Moreover, NAB points out that the proposals would require novel engineering studies that would be expensive and time-consuming, particularly for smaller broadcasters where the cost of conducting such studies is likely to be multiples of current engineering design costs. Significantly, television stations would bear the administrative burden of studying and proving the availability of channels for other users in order to have an application that is otherwise in the public interest grantedboth in congested areas where a vacant channel may not be available in the television band and in less congested areas where more spectrum is available such that analysis is not warranted. Therefore, the Commission finds that, on balance, seeking to preserve a vacant channel for shared use by white space devices and wireless microphone operations at this time, considering all of the actions that the Commission has taken since 2015 to promote those users interests, are outweighed by the burdens of the proposals on broadcasters and the Commission terminates the proceeding.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:41 Feb 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch, Secretary.
Editorial Note: The Office of the Federal Register received this document on December 15, 2020.
FR Doc. 202028025 Filed 21121; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 671201P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
CG Docket No. 02278; FCC 20182; FRS
17356

Government and Government Contractor Calls Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Adjudicatory ruling.
AGENCY:

In this document, the Commission finds that state government callers, like federal government callers, are not persons for purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act TCPA because they are sovereign entities. The Commission also clarifies that a local government caller is a person subject to the TCPA. On reconsideration of the Broadnet Declaratory Ruling, the Commission reverses its previous order to the extent that it provided that a contractor making calls on behalf of the federal government was not a person subject to the restrictions of the TCPA. The Commission also clarifies that a state or local government contractor, like a federal government contractor, is a person and thus not exempt from the TCPAs restrictions. This action was taken in response to petitions that sought clarification of these issues and removes any uncertainty on when governmental callers or contractors making calls on their behalf are required to obtain the prior express consent of called parties.
DATES: Effective February 12, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard D. Smith of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 717
3382797 or Richard.Smith@fcc.gov; or Kristi Thornton at 202 4182467 or Kristi.Thornton@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commissions Order on Reconsideration, document FCC 20
182, released on December 14, 2020.
The full text of document FCC 20182
is available online at https
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC20-182A1.pdf. To request this document SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

9299

in accessible formats for people with disabilities e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format or to request reasonable accommodations e.g., accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCCs Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202 4180530
voice.
Synopsis 1. On reconsideration of the Broadnet Declaratory Ruling, the Commission reverses its previous order to the extent that it provided that a contractor making calls on behalf of the federal government was not a person subject to the restrictions in section 227b1 of the TCPA. The Commission also clarifies that a state government caller making calls in the conduct of official government business is not a person subject to section 227b1 of the TCPA, while a state or local government contractor, like a federal contractor, is a person and thus not exempt from the TCPAs restrictions. Finally, the Commission clarifies that a local government is a person subject to the TCPA. As such, the Commission grants in part the National Consumer Law Center NCLC petition for reconsideration, denies the Professional Services Council PSC petition for reconsideration, reverses the Commissions Broadnet Declaratory Ruling in part, and grants in part and denies in part Broadnets petition for declaratory ruling.
A. Federal Contractors are Subject to Section 227b1 of the TCPA
2. The Commission finds that a federal government contractor is a person under section 227b1. The term person as used in the TCPA and defined in the Communications Act Act expressly includes an individual, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, or corporation unless the context otherwise requires. Every federal contractor, including those acting as agents, falls within one of these categories. And, unlike the federal government itself, there is no longstanding presumption that a federal contractor is not a person. Nor does the Commission find any context that otherwise requires it to ignore the express language of the Acts definition of the term person in this situation.
Absent any applicable presumption to the contrary, the express definition of person as contained in the Act is controlling.
3. Federal government contractors may obtain consumers prior express consent to make calls covered by the
E:FRFM12FER1.SGM

12FER1